The Pascal Werhlein Award for the lowest average finish (of those competing) in 2017*:

The Esteban Ocon Award for the most consistent player of 2017*:

The Lance Stroll Award, for the most inconsitent player of 2017*:

The Eddie Jordan Award, for predicting the most correct finishers in 2017:

And finally, The Romain Grosjean Award, for just getting it wrong more than anyone in 2017:

*Minimum of 5 races, although I'm not saying that its statistically significant, this is just some fun.** Podiums as in top 3 highest scores, with ties using up the lower position's places. A bit different to how Pokerman shows the podiums in the results.

The Pascal Werhlein Award for the lowest average finish (of those competing) in 2017*:

The Esteban Ocon Award for the most consistent player of 2017*:

The Lance Stroll Award, for the most inconsitent player of 2017*:

The Eddie Jordan Award, for predicting the most correct finishers in 2017:

And finally, The Romain Grosjean Award, for just getting it wrong more than anyone in 2017:

*Minimum of 5 races, although I'm not saying that its statistically significant, this is just some fun.** Podiums as in top 3 highest scores, with ties using up the lower position's places. A bit different to how Pokerman shows the podiums in the results.

The spreadsheet I sent doesn't include any penalties Herb so that might offset some results?

ps: how about allowing entries after qualifying, with say 35pts penalty? You could still set a deadline of say 2 hours before race start..

I would do that every single time if it was legal - I'd expect to be able to score 200-250 less 35 every race, which isn't bad at all!

There was one race - I forget which, where my top 10 picks were all bang on for the grid. However come the race I didn't do especially well. Have a look at how often the grid matches the finishing order..

I'm also assuming there would be a large enough penalty to discourage people doing it too often. if not 35 then maybe 50?

One big thing I would have against it is that it takes away the skill from the game, you might as well have a robot playing for you, and you could have several people doing it so your not actually standing out from the crowd, were is the achievement?

In this regard the size of the penalty doesn't matter it would be just as much of a case as people not actually playing the game.

I just checked for the Abu Dhabi GP: If you'd taken your 10 pics from quali, you'd have scored 200. Given the winner scored 181 this is not a great gain. So with a penalty of 35 you'd score 165, netting 10th place. And Abu Dhabi was a processional race which had very little alteration to grid order. For the USA GP, which had more action, you'd score 166, = 131 with penalty, for 26th place.

Why is this 'not playing the game'? In general grid order does not differ much from the FP session orders anyway.

I'm not looking specifically to change the scoring. But given 53 people played round 1 and only 31 finished the season wouldn't it be good to find ways of encouraging people to play? Do we want a tough game just for the experts, or a more friendly game for everyone who might fancy a go?

ps: how about allowing entries after qualifying, with say 35pts penalty? You could still set a deadline of say 2 hours before race start..

I would do that every single time if it was legal - I'd expect to be able to score 200-250 less 35 every race, which isn't bad at all!

There was one race - I forget which, where my top 10 picks were all bang on for the grid. However come the race I didn't do especially well. Have a look at how often the grid matches the finishing order..

I'm also assuming there would be a large enough penalty to discourage people doing it too often. if not 35 then maybe 50?

One big thing I would have against it is that it takes away the skill from the game, you might as well have a robot playing for you, and you could have several people doing it so your not actually standing out from the crowd, were is the achievement?

In this regard the size of the penalty doesn't matter it would be just as much of a case as people not actually playing the game.

I just checked for the Abu Dhabi GP: If you'd taken your 10 pics from quali, you'd have scored 200. Given the winner scored 181 this is not a great gain. So with a penalty of 35 you'd score 165, netting 10th place. And Abu Dhabi was a processional race which had very little alteration to grid order. For the USA GP, which had more action, you'd score 166, = 131 with penalty, for 26th place.

Why is this 'not playing the game'? In general grid order does not differ much from the FP session orders anyway.

I'm not looking specifically to change the scoring. But given 53 people played round 1 and only 31 finished the season wouldn't it be good to find ways of encouraging people to play? Do we want a tough game just for the experts, or a more friendly game for everyone who might fancy a go?

You're not really taking part, you're not putting any thought into it, that's the fun of the game, and what if you have several people doing this, it would be just like of bunch of robots playing and getting the same scores every time.

The history of the game is that a bunch of people start playing and some drop out, they perhaps simply forget all about it, lose interest as in it seemed a good idea at the time, or maybe just miss a round and think that's the season blown so stop playing, the latter of which I was looking to address.

There is a solid core of people who love the dynamics of the game, me included who loved the game so much that I took over the running of it, this solid core do not want anything changing.

I would not have a problem with giving people who miss one round a score that at least could keep then in the competition, providing that:- you can only get the "missed round score" once per season;- that score is lower than the lowest score in the round, perhaps lowest score minus 10%?

Hurts enough to punish but not terminal for your season I don't think.

_________________"Clark came through at the end of the first lap so far ahead that we in the pits were convinced that the rest of the field must have been wiped out in an accident."-Eddie Dennis, describing the dominance of Jim Clark in the Lotus 49 at Spa 1967

I would not have a problem with giving people who miss one round a score that at least could keep then in the competition, providing that:- you can only get the "missed round score" once per season;- that score is lower than the lowest score in the round, perhaps lowest score minus 10%?

Maybe the once per season bit in my proposal is a bit too stingy, but some limit on the number of times people can miss a round and still get points seems fair to me.

Yeah once would be fine by me but maybe 3 max across 21 races could be a compromise if it was felt one wasn't enough.

_________________"Clark came through at the end of the first lap so far ahead that we in the pits were convinced that the rest of the field must have been wiped out in an accident."-Eddie Dennis, describing the dominance of Jim Clark in the Lotus 49 at Spa 1967

Just for a different perspective.. If you miss a weekend, that's the price to pay. You have to show up to all 20 grand prix to have a shot at the title. Especially now that we saw those new stats and 29 people entered every single race. That's very impressive! It wouldn't be fair to all those competitors who entered every race to have someone who missed a race to get makeup points.

Maybe the once per season bit in my proposal is a bit too stingy, but some limit on the number of times people can miss a round and still get points seems fair to me.

How about we do like real F1 (well, in the past...) and let you drop your lowest score(s) from the season? That way it doesn't really give anything to people who miss a round, it just becomes that they missed an opportunity to have a better score.

On the other hand, the Pick 10 is widely known to be a consistency championship. If we want it to stay as one, I see no reason not to penalize people for missing a round. With at the very least a whole week to play with, and often two or more, I think it's very rare for a contestant to have no chance to enter picks at all within that time frame. If people leave it for the last minute, I'd have to say it's really their fault - unlike in the Top Three, there's no incentive to enter your picks late here.

Maybe the once per season bit in my proposal is a bit too stingy, but some limit on the number of times people can miss a round and still get points seems fair to me.

How about we do like real F1 (well, in the past...) and let you drop your lowest score(s) from the season? That way it doesn't really give anything to people who miss a round, it just becomes that they missed an opportunity to have a better score.

On the other hand, the Pick 10 is widely known to be a consistency championship. If we want it to stay as one, I see no reason not to penalize people for missing a round. With at the very least a whole week to play with, and often two or more, I think it's very rare for a contestant to have no chance to enter picks at all within that time frame. If people leave it for the last minute, I'd have to say it's really their fault - unlike in the Top Three, there's no incentive to enter your picks late here.

I agree. It is a consistency championship. If you leave it to the last minute, then it’s your own fault.

I agree. It is a consistency championship. If you leave it to the last minute, then it’s your own fault.

If the majority view is for no default score then I'm fine with that. Hopefully it would be stated in the intro to the 2018 comp that if you miss a round you will score 0 but can still enter the other rounds, just to make everyone aware.

I think default = last score - 10% is iffy. What if someone does a mad speculative pick and scores awfully? Or even if someone deliberately submits a duff pick (under a 2nd name maybe) to ensure a very low default score? The default could be far lower at 1 race than another - penalising someone who misses that 1 race more than another race.

I would do that every single time if it was legal - I'd expect to be able to score 200-250 less 35 every race, which isn't bad at all!

In fact, considering the vast gap in my form (#3 in the world vs. #19 out of about thirty) between this competition and the Autosport GP competition - where the main difference is that you can use practice information - I'm strongly considering trying the strategy of taking the FP3 penalty every weekend next year. In which case if you want to stop me, upping the penalties wouldn't be a bad idea.

Maybe you could be the guinea pig to see if the penalties are sufficient?

I might just take you up on that!

Exediron - out of my 7 times, when I received penalty and what pokerman also highlighted - total 123-points (6x18p + 1x15p) - I can conclude it only served me well 1 time (Monaco, if remembering well) - there I gained more than penalty took away after changing.All others I have lost or pretty much same outcome.The greatest backfire came from Baku - everybody scored so few points and then having -18p from already low scores hit especially hard!

So my conclusion is that I would not pursue that approach next season (although I didn´t change every time intentionally - many times I just forgot and had to bear with it).

tim3003 - your idea of having median/2 for particular weekend scores for all forgetters is I think good one. pokerman - I am also in favor of hard-stop deadline after missing qualifying start (and not -35p or else).

I believe Jenson's Understeer benefited greatly early in the season from changing his picks after FP3 after realising his original picks were not very good, later in the season he did the same in Singapore but the leaders crashed out and it was a low scoring round and he ended up with 42 points, a net loss of 75 points on his original picks, it very much took the sails out of his season, he would have won the title, once bitten he never did that again.

I did it at Monaco and it gained me 50 points, as well as a podium. Then I did it again at Singapore and it lost me 65 points. So I definitely experienced both ends of the stick. Of course, had the start at Singapore not been as chaotic as it was, who knows what might've happened there, but that's the risk you take.

As for once bitten and not doing it again, had there been another set of circumstances where I felt I could've gained points by doing it after Singapore, I would've. Thankfully, there wasn't a race where my picks seemed so far off that it made sense to take that risk. And if the rules all stay the same for 2018, and there is a race where I feel I can benefit from taking that risk then I will.

Much thanks for running this again pokerman. Very much appreciate the work you do.

Cheers, I noticed you missed the last round?

Yeah, got really busy and distracted that weekend. Wasn't able to even watch the race until Tuesday.

Yeah as Exediron makes the point maybe people who sometimes find themselves with time constraints should be putting in banker entries days before, these can always be edited later.

I think I will take his advice and suggest this prior to the start of next season, it really would be advisable for a few players to do this who consistently have time problems close to the weekend.

How would you feel about a "universal banker" that you can put in before the start of the season and will automatically be applied in the absence of any championship round entry?

This has been put forward before and I stated that players need to be taking part, I believe there is a competition on here that runs to that very same rule for every race, you pick a set entry for the year?

You might not enter for a particular race and end up winning that round, that doesn't sit right at all.

How would you feel about a "universal banker" that you can put in before the start of the season and will automatically be applied in the absence of any championship round entry?

This has been put forward before and I stated that players need to be taking part, I believe there is a competition on here that runs to that very same rule for every race, you pick a set entry for the year?

You might not enter for a particular race and end up winning that round, that doesn't sit right at all.

This occured to me too. But I thought it wouldn't pass muster! An alternative would be to automatically enter a player's picks for the previous round if they miss the deadline for 'this' round. And maybe add a rule that you're only allowed to do it once or twice per season. After that you do miss entering the round.

This too could be a bit annoying for other entrants if a carried forward pick won though!

Personally, I think if you miss a round you miss a round, simple as that. If you're not convinced you'll remember to predict then get your prediction in early. It isn't like the Top Three or Oracle games where you can potentially wait until there has been some running to predict without suffering a penalty, so I don't even see why anyone feels the need to wait until the last minute.

I'm perfectly happy with no change either but TypingChicane's proposal is the best one if it's decided otherwise IMO.

_________________"Clark came through at the end of the first lap so far ahead that we in the pits were convinced that the rest of the field must have been wiped out in an accident."-Eddie Dennis, describing the dominance of Jim Clark in the Lotus 49 at Spa 1967

Personally, I think if you miss a round you miss a round, simple as that. If you're not convinced you'll remember to predict then get your prediction in early. It isn't like the Top Three or Oracle games where you can potentially wait until there has been some running to predict without suffering a penalty, so I don't even see why anyone feels the need to wait until the last minute.

After reading all the posts I feel the best way forward is to continue as before and not change anything apart from an advisory note that players that have problems remembering to enter, which often seems to relate to work commitments, should put in an early banker entry, maybe soon after the previous race when it's fresh in their minds, these of course can then be edited much nearer the cut off point if needs be.